Mr. Todd asked fmr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen the same question that he asked Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) last week, and he was surprised that he got the same answer. The question being who they feared more - Iran or ISIS, and both men answered Iran. But the problem is not with the answer, it's with the question.
Given Mr. Graham's track record of ill-advised foreign policy positions in the past, we'll still give him the benefit of the doubt here along with Admiral Mullen of course, that they are answering the question from a long-term strategic perspective, whereas the question is framed in terms of fear [of being attacked].
If you look at it that way, which seemed evident in Adm. Mullen's interview, then it makes perfect sense because the fact is that ISIS has too many enemies and Iran has too much influence. It's the expansion of that influence that prompts answers from these types of people. Not too mention the other significant point that Andrea Mitchell brought up, which was the question of Iran's deliver systems and how advanced those are. So on a more macro level, their answers are well-founded because beside nuclear weapons ambitions, Iran wants the same oil influence in the world as Saudi Arabia has, which makes many vested parties more than uncomfortable - summed up by NBC's Bill Neely. And lastly, Iran's position that Israel doesn't have the right to exist is completely unacceptable. It has the right, it does exist - get over it and deal. Maybe that seems trite, but if Iran only has peaceful intentions for its nuclear program then why the provocation? And it's a continuing one, because Iran must know that before the first of anything hits the ground in Israel, the United States will have already dropped hundreds. From the Iranian perspective, they play a dangerous foolish game, provoking the United States.
Tough talk... which should be delivered by the president, not by Congress in a sophomoric letter, in which it now has been established that neoconservative Bill Kristol consulted freshman Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) on the idea. Disappointingly and not surprisingly, Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) has not second thoughts about signing it even given this week Senator John McCain admitting it wasn't thought out well unlike some of Mr. Kristol's other ideas like Sarah Palin for VP or the Iraq War.
And here's why Senator Tim Kane's (D-VA) co-sponsored bill that Congress must ratify any negotiated nuclear deal with Iran is a bad idea. First, we want to point out that Senator Kane specifically said that the letter was "an unacceptable level of contempt of the office of the presidency," the very point we touched on in our last post. In spirit, it's a good idea actually, but in practicality, a complete embarrassing disaster waiting to happen. Keep in mind that the negotiations with Iran also involves the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, Russia, England, The United States, and France) and Germany. If the bill languishes in Congress, which is likely - passing in the Senate and dead in the House where does that leave the deal? The others go ahead and the U.S. is left out? We impose sanctions and no one else does while Iran continues on with it's nuclear program? If the bill does pass both Houses and the president vetoes it, then what? All this only to make the United States look fractured and indecisive - very problematic.
With what seems like a Congressional majority for the legislation that gives them a ratifying say in the matter, Congress is completely hands off when it comes to a formal authorization for the use of force against ISIS, which at least on the surface seems like there would be broad consensus, but instead just killing time.
Speaking of legislation and 'problematic,' how about Congress pass a law that limits the amount of times Congress can investigate an incident of government scale, like Benghazi. Before Mr. Todd's interview with Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who heads up the Benghazi investigation.
The sixth one.
Now, fmr. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton clouded the issue with the personal e-mail controversy, but as Congressman Gowdy explain, she is but a very small part of the overall investigation. He also said that his committee was the first one to interview Mrs. Clinton and several others. This leads one to ask what the other committees that conducted investigations were doing. Mrs. Clinton did testify in front of Congress so we'll presume he's differentiating between Congressional testimony and an interview. It still makes no sense to do five investigations without interviewing all relevant officials. Admiral Mullen was part of one of those investigations and he said on the program that he was completely comfortable with what his committee did and the conclusions they came to. Mr. Gowdy's committee is doing work that should have already been done, what a waste. And bringing it full circle, Mr. Todd mentioned that Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) wants an investigation into Mrs. Clinton's e-mails. Not the most judicious use of time, wouldn't you agree?
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Karen Finney, fmr. DNC Communications Director; Kevin Madden, fmr. senior advisor for Mitt Romney; Matt Bai, Yahoo News
A Note to the Producers: On "Meet The Press," viewers, and the panel itself, are better served when it consists of only journalists, reporters, op-ed writers, et. al. In other words the press, and not strategists. The discussion of Mrs. Clinton's e-mails became a verbal joust between Kevin Madden and more egregiously Karen Finney (in Mrs. Clinton's defense), in which Mr. Todd has to shift from moderator to referee, which is inappropriate for "The Meet Press." That's for cable.
No comments:
Post a Comment